Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Illustration: Benjamin Currie/Gizmodo

Earlier this year, a research team made waves by suggesting that we should disseminate Earths microbes on Mars in a preemptive effort to foster a climate hospitable to human life. To the anti-contamination school of celestial thought, this was heresy; to the most others, this was an obscure theoretical squabble over an issue theyd never heard about. Still, given that our descendants may well spend their most productive years on Mars, its worth trying to grasp these early, pre-colonial debates before they assume life-or-death urgency. To that end, for this weeks Giz Asks weve posed a two-parter to a number of relevant experts. First: Could we populate another planet with genetically modified organisms? Second: Should we?

Associate Professor, Anthropology, York University, whose research focuses on the social and ethical aspects of space exploration, among other things

We probably could; we probably shouldnt. But first, its worth asking: whos we?

Discussion of space and the future often involves a rhetorical we that encompasses all humanity or our species. But its time to think differently about space. There is no big we here. For the foreseeable future, only a very few human beings will have the capability to launch or act in spaceand only a very few human beings have the ability to genetically modify other organisms. And obviously, that tiny contingent of humans invents and develops these technologies with the general intention of using them.

That tiny contingent of humans does not include me. I have opinions. But I dont have a vote. And thats true for the vast majority of people reading this. That matters, because when a space agency, space advocacy group, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, etc., says We should do X or Y in space theyre using traditional rhetoric that encourages audiences to think that we (the rest of humanity) are a part of what theyre doing. Clarity on this matters a lot now, as multilateralism is either faltering or collapsing, the capabilities of private actors are accelerating, and the likelihood of unilateral actions increases. There are a multitude of different interests in space, and a multitude of ideologies and capabilitiesnot one we.

Anyway, in theory, yes, some humans could introduce some genetically modified organisms onto another planet. (Full-on terraforming is much less feasible.) Not all planets would be suitable, but some might be. Human technology cannot yet physically reach the myriad planets outside our solar system, but miniscule interstellar probes carrying dormant microbial payloads and pointed at exoplanets are theoretically possible. But for the moment, the most likely targets would be the planets (and moons) in our own solar system. So:

Should some humans populate a world in our solar system with GM organisms? Nooooooooo. At the very least, not yet. Reason #1: many would regard this as a breach of the Outer Space Treaty. Reason #2: some of those worlds might have life already, and its much better to find it and study it thoroughly first. Reason #3: Perhaps other worlds have their own intrinsic value regardless of their liveliness. Worth considering, at least.

Further away: should some humans populate an exoplanet with GM organisms? A louder Noooooooooooooo. Louder because theres an unnerving asymmetry: it could be faster/easier to send a payload-laden micro-probe to an exoplanet than to study the exoplanet thoroughly first. Also, human beings are not going to exoplanets anytime soonif everwhich negates a main justification for doing this kind of bioengineering.

G/O Media may get a commission

Senior Scientist, SETI Institute

Take Mars, Europa, and Enceladuseach of which appear to have water tucked out of the way, below thick ice layers (although not always hiddenthere are plumes). We probably could modify an Earth organism, or suite of organisms, to live in such places for some limited period of time, but I couldnt guarantee you could populate one of those places with GMOs. Unless you were tremendously lucky, the Earth organisms might eat all of the minerals in reach, and then stage a massive die-off that would be tremendously yucky and pointless. And if you were that lucky, there might be native organisms that would just eat your GMO additions and yield a polite burp of methane and leave it at that. Right now we dont know enough to do something useful with GMOs at any alien place (and only a few on Earth).

There are lots of ways in which we are too ignorant to do anything useful with this scheme, and of course not knowing how ignorant we are is one of them. We do not need to give up on a search for life elsewhere in this solar system just because some microbiologists have a tool and no patience. And we dont need to take shortcuts in pursuing such a search so that we lose that scientific pursuit just because it is hard to do without inadvertent (let alone purposeful) contamination of the best sites.

Professor of Planetary Habitability and Astrobiology at Technical University Berlin, President of the German Astrobiology Society, and Co-author of The Cosmic Zoo: Complex Life on Many Worlds

I dont think were there yet, in two senses. We dont know the environmental conditions of other planets well enough, and we dont know how to optimally tune the genetic code of an organism to thrive in that extraterrestrial environment. The only planet where I see this as a possibility in the near future is Mars, which we know best of all the planets and moons in our Solar System.

But even if we can do it, I dont think we should. It would be a very human-centric approach. Instead, we should try to explore the diversity of life that may exist on other planetary targets. In regard to Mars, that would mean exploring whether indigenous (microbial) life exists, and if so, studying how it is different from life on Earth. (Even if there is a common origin, evolution in the different planetary environments would still have resulted in significant organismic changes.)

Mars (and any other planet or moon potentially harboring life) has many microenvironments that may contain life; to conclusively prove that there is no indigenous life at all, anywhere on the planet, may be close to impossible, at least for the foreseeable future (and especially given our current ignoranceafter all, we only know about one type of life). As long as the possibility of indigenous life cannot be excluded, populating Mars or any other planet with genetically modified organisms is out of the question.

If we encounter a habitable planetand one which we know for sure is uninhabitedthe question becomes harder to answer. We can come to that when the situation ariseswhich it wont for a very long time.

Professor and Principle Investigator of the Ohio Musculoskeletal & Neurological Institute and Emeritus Professor of Space Biology at Nottingham University

Indeed we could. We have the capability to land robots on other planets. Currently we sterilize these to prevent accidentally contaminating other planets with microscopic life forms. If we wanted to not sterilize or deliberately send microscopic life to other planets, this is fairly easy to do. Similarly, labs on Earth routinely make and use genetically modified microscopic life forms. Thus, it is also fairly easy to send GMO microscopic life forms to other planets.

Whether we should is the more difficult question. Who benefits from doing this, and who loses out? Do the benefits outweigh the losses? If this is done to allow human habitation of another planet, then potentially all of humanity gainswhereas those aspects of planetary science that want/need to study a natural planet lose out. If this is done to allow for the commercial/financial gain of a few, does that outweigh the loss to science?

Assistant Professor of Astronomy and Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona

It depends on the planet. An exoplanet around a star system is probably out of reach with current technology.

If the candidate planet is in our solar system, such as Marsperhaps. It becomes a question of: For how much, or how long, are you willing to provide technological assistance to create a habitable volume elsewhere? The engineered organisms will most likely be severely restricted in the range of places they can inhabit. So far as we know, no amount of genetic engineering will enable terrestrial organisms to survive under freezing temperature and extreme soil oxidation conditions, such as those found in the Martian environment.

Subsurface ocean worlds such as Enceladus or Europa might work, but we havent precisely characterized their habitability, and it is difficult to foresee how the organisms would be delivered there if the shell of ice is kilometers thick.

That being said, genetically engineering organisms and evolving them under various conditions may allow us to understand the limits of life here on Earth.

Do you have a burning question for Giz Asks? Email us at tipbox@gizmodo.com.

More:
Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? - Gizmodo

[In The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention, psychologist Simon] Baron-Cohen argues that humans split off from all other animals to become the scientific and technological masters of our planet because we evolved a unique piece of mental equipment that he calls the Systemizing Mechanism While everyone has a Systemizing Mechanism, its tuned especially high in people who are inventors and in those drawn to fields like science, engineering, music, competitive sports, high-level business and often, too, in people with autism.

Heres how the mechanism works: Humans alone observe the world and ask questions that demand why, how and what They use those patterns to build theories, which they then repeatedly test, looking always for systems to further employ and exploit.

As Baron-Cohen describes it, the Systemizing Mechanism is so all-powerful, it explains evolutionary change, historic progress and individual excellence including, for example, the ancient shift from simple to complex tool use, the invention of the light bulb and the late Kobe Bryants highly regimented training schedule. Its true, all these scenarios can be described as looping sequences of if-and-then reasoning. But its a much greater leap to show that this is the main engine of evolution, or that it demonstrates how human brains work in real time, or that the two things have much in common.

[Editors note: Find The Patter Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention here.]

Read the original post

View post:
'The Pattern Seekers': What autism can tell us about the evolutionary tipping point that made us human - Genetic Literacy Project

DUBLIN, Jan. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change provides the strategists, marketers and senior management with the critical information they need to assess the global crispr technology market.

Major players in the CRISPR technology market are Thermo Fisher Scientific, GenScript Biotech Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Horizon Discovery Plc., Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Danaher), Origene Technologies, Inc., Transposagenbio Biopharmaceuticals (Hera Biolabs), Intellia Therapeutics Inc., and GeneCopoeia, Inc.

The global CRISPR technology market is expected to increase from $0.76 billion in 2019 to $0.92 billion in 2020 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.91%. The exponential growth is mainly due to the COVID-19 outbreak that has led to the research for drugs for COVID-19 with gene-editing using CRISPR technology. The market is expected to reach $1.55 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 19.13%.

The CRISPR technology market consists of sales of CRISPR technology products and services which is a gene-editing technology that allows researchers to alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. The revenue generated by the market includes the sales of products such as design tools, plasmid & vector, Cas9 & gRNA, libraries & delivery system products and services that include design & vector construction, screening and cell line engineering.

These products and services are used in genome editing/genetic engineering, genetically modifying organisms, agricultural biotechnology and others which include gRNA database/gene library, CRISPR plasmid, human stem cell & cell line engineering by end-users. The end-users include pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic & research institutes and contract research organizations.

North America was the largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019. Europe was the second-largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019.

In 2019, Cardea Bio Inc., a US-based biotechnology infrastructure company that manufactures biology-gated transistors (Cardean transistors) that utilizes biocompatible graphene instead of silicon and replaces optical signal observations with direct electrical molecular signal analysis, merged with Nanosens Innovations, Inc. The merger is aimed at accelerating the development of the genome sensor that combines Nanosens' CRISPR-Chip technology with Cardea's graphene biosensor infrastructure and is the first DNA search engine globally that runs on CRISPR-Chip technology. Nanosens will be operating as a subsidiary of Cardea Bio. Nanosens Innovations, Inc. is a US-based biotechnology company that develops CRISPR-Chip and FEB technology.

The CRISPR technology market covered in this report is segmented by product type into design tools; plasmid and vector; CAS9 and G-RNA; delivery system products. It is also segmented by application into genome editing/ genetic engineering; genetically modified organisms; agricultural biotechnology; others and by end-user into industrial biotech; biological research; agricultural research; therapeutics and drug discovery.

Stringent government regulations are expected to retard the growth of the CRISPR technology market during the period. There is no existence of internationally agreed regulatory framework for gene editing products and countries are in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent current regulations are adequate for research conducted with gene editing and applications and products related to gene editing. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it would treat gene-edited crops as genetically modified organisms, subject to stringent regulation.

In April 2019, the Australian government stated that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) will regulate only the gene-editing technologies that use a template, or that insert other genetic material into the cell. According to an article of 2020, in India, as per the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, genome modification including gene-editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology of stem cells, germ-line stem cells or gamete and human embryos is restricted only to in-vitro studies. Thus, strict regulations by the government present a threat to the growth of the market.

Several advancements in CRISPR technology are trending in the market during the period. Advancements in technology will help in reducing errors, limiting unintended effects, improving the accuracy of the tool, widening its applications, developing gene therapies and more. In 2019, a study published in Springer Nature stated the development of an advanced super-precise new CRISPR tool that allows researchers more control over DNA changes. This tool seems to have the capability of providing a wider variety of gene edits which might potentially open up conditions that have challenged gene-editors.

Also, in 2020, another study in Springer Nature stated that researchers have used enzyme engineering to boost the accuracy of the technique of error-prone CRISPR-Cas9 system to precisely target DNA without introducing as many unwanted mutations. The advancements in CRISPR technology will result in better tools that are capable of providing better outcomes.

The application of CRISPR technology as a diagnostic tool is expected to boost the market during the period. The Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit is the first diagnostic kit based on CRISPR technology for infectious diseases caused due to COVID-19. In May 2020, FDA announced the emergency use authorization to the Sherlock BioSciences Inc's Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit which is a CRISPR-based SHERLOCK (Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter unLOCKing) diagnostic test.

This test helps in specifically targeting RNA or DNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from specimens or samples such as nasal swabs from the upper respiratory tract and fluid in the lungs from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens. This diagnostic kit has high specificity and sensitivity and does not provide false negative or positive results. Widening the application of CRISPR technology for the diagnosis of infectious diseases will increase the demand for CRISPR technology products and services.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Executive Summary

2. CRISPR Technology Market Characteristics

3. CRISPR Technology Market Size And Growth

3.1. Global CRISPR Technology Historic Market, 2015 - 2019, $ Billion

3.1.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.1.2. Restraints On The Market

3.2. Global CRISPR Technology Forecast Market, 2019 - 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

3.2.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.2.2. Restraints On the Market

4. CRISPR Technology Market Segmentation

4.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Product Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Application, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.3. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By End-User, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5. CRISPR Technology Market Regional And Country Analysis 5.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Region, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion 5.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Country, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/vnvkue

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Follow this link:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change - Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 - Forecast to...

New York, Dec. 24, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

The naturally occurring microbiota is actively involved in metabolic cycle and the performance of immune system.Today, with deeper understanding of microbiome and its role in human health, we are able to utilize microbiome for developing therapeutics.

Designing microbial therapeutics has been challenging , however with the help of genetic engineering tools manipulating these naturally occurring consortia of microbiome has gained momentum in the last five years. Numerous studies are being conducted to gain deeper understanding of host-microbiome interaction for developing targeted therapeutics.A significant focus of human microbiome research has been studying the bacteria in the gut, which represent the largest community both in terms of abundance and diversity. Microbiome therapeutics companies are increasingly involved in developing therapies for dysbiosis , obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, even neurological disorders as schizophrenia and autism. This radar profiles companies actively involved in developing microbiome therapeutics.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

View original post here:
Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 - GlobeNewswire

According to a statement from the USDA, the agency will begin an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public input and feedback on the contemplated regulatory framework.

Our livestock producers need all the tools in the toolbox to help protect against animal diseases and continue to meet the challenge of feeding everyone now and into the future. If we do not put these safe biotechnology advances to work here at home, our competitors in other nations will, Perdue said. Science-based advances in biotechnology have great promise to continue to enhance rural prosperity and improve the quality of life across Americas heartland and around the globe. With this effort, we are outlining a pragmatic, science-based, and risk-based approach that focuses on potential risk to animal and livestock health, the environment, and food safety in order to provide our farmers and ranchers the tools they need to continue to feed, clothe and fuel the world.

This ANPR will transition portions of FDAs pre-existing animal biotechnology regulatory oversight to USDA. USDA will consult with FDA to ensure reviews benefit from FDAs expertise, while providing developers with a one-stop-shop for their products at USDA.

Through this ANPR, USDA is proposing to establish a flexible, forward-looking, risk-proportionate and science-based regulatory framework that provides a predictable pathway to commercialization and keeps pace with advances in science and technology for certain farm animals (cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, mules, or other equines, catfish, and poultry) developed using genetic engineering intended for agricultural purposes.

USDAs proposed safety review would cover molecular characterization, animal health (including noninfectious, infectious, and zoonotic diseases), efficacy (for disease and pest resistance traits), environmental considerations, food safety evaluation of any expressed substance (including allergenicity and compositional analyses of key components), and food storage and processing. USDAs proposal would provide end-to-end regulatory oversight from pre-market reviews through post-market food safety monitoring of animals. USDA will continue to coordinate closely with the FDA to fulfill oversight responsibilities and provide the appropriate regulatory environment, ensuring the safety of products derived from new technologies, while fostering innovation at the same time.

Under the regulatory framework being contemplated, USDA would provide regulatory oversight from pre-market reviews through post-market food safety monitoring for certain farm animals developed using genetic engineering. USDA would promulgate regulations using the authorities granted to the Department through the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). Pursuant to these authorities, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would conduct a safety assessment of organisms developed using genetic engineering that may increase an animals susceptibility to pests or diseases of livestock, including zoonotic diseases, or ability to transmit the same. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) would conduct a pre-slaughter food safety assessment to ensure that the slaughter and processing of animals developed using genetic engineering would not result in a product that is unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food.

The rest is here:
Sonny Perdue proposes transferring animal biotech regulation to USDA - AG Week

This is the second part of The Narwhals three-part series on the future of sustainable salmon.

On Prince Edward Island, anchored between Rollo Bay and a sea of potato fields, the first genetically engineered salmon raised in Canada for food are swimming in tanks.

Grown in a land-based containment system, they look like any other Atlantic salmon: silvery, pale-bellied and speckled on top. But hidden in their DNA is a growth hormone gene from chinook salmon spliced into genetic coding from ocean pout, an eel-like fish that allows them to grow to full size at twice the speed.

When the salmon are harvested early in the new year, they will be shipped to seafood distributors, finding their way to restaurants, hotels, hospitals and grocery stores. Yet Canadians munching on salmon tacos or salmon au gratin wont have a clue they are eating the worlds first genetically modified food animal. Unlike the European Union and the United States, Canada does not require GMO foods to be labelled and the fast-growing fish are no exception.

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!

People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our adfree, independent journalism

AquaBounty Technologies, the U.S.-based biotechnology company pioneering the genetically engineered salmon, says it is combining the goodness of nature with the power of science and technology.

We believe savouring your favourite fish and helping save the planet should be one and the same, the companys website says. And thats why we believe in using science and technology to help solve global problems, like food scarcity and climate change.

AquaBounty markets the salmon as disease- and antibiotic-free, saying its product comes with a reduced carbon footprint and no risk of pollution of marine ecosystems compared to traditional sea-cage farming.

But others have a wildly different view of the AquaBounty salmon, grown with technology called AquAdvantage, a name that would be at home on the pages of a dystopian Margaret Atwood novel.

Its Frankenfish, says Charlie Sark, a member of the Mikmaq First Nations and professor in the school of climate change and adaptation at the University of P.E.I. Its science fiction. Just because weve created a machine that can splice genes together, does it mean we should do it?

Even if the engineered salmon are raised only in land-based containment systems, Sark and others say human error could lead to the genetic contamination of threatened wild salmon stocks, underscoring that the federal governments behind-closed-doors approval of AquAdvantage fish has far reaching consequences for Indigenous Rights and nature.

Salmon are sacred, Sark says in an interview. You just cant change the genetics of an animal that Indigenous peoples have used for thousands of years without first consulting them.

An AquaBounty genetically engineered Atlantic farmed salmon photographed in July, 2020, at a fish farm facility on Prince Edward Island. Photo: AquaBounty

Genetically engineered salmon eggs were approved for land-based production in Canada in 2013, when Stephen Harpers Conservatives were in power.

The government only permitted one company, AquaBounty, to produce the eggs and only at a P.E.I. facility. Today, the Rollo Bay operation is also the sole supplier of genetically engineered Atlantic salmon eggs for the companys land-based salmon farm in Albany, Indiana, which planned to send salmon to market late this year or early in 2021.

The eggs had their genesis in a laboratory at Newfoundlands Memorial University, where scientist Garth Fletcher and his colleagues isolated the anti-freeze gene in ocean pout, which can survive year-round in near-freezing waters.

They replaced the coding region in the middle of the anti-freeze gene unlike in other fish, the gene doesnt turn off seasonally with the growth hormone gene from chinook salmon (the scientists used chinook because it was readily available at the time).

Then the team injected the new coding sequence into Atlantic salmon eggs. It took a while for us not to kill the eggs, Fletcher, head of the ocean sciences department, says in an interview.

After tweaking their technique, Fletcher and his colleagues were excited to discover the genetic trait was passed on through breeding. And then came another exciting finding for the team; the rapidly-growing salmon reached maturity in just under two years, compared to three.

Scientist Garth Fletcher is head of the ocean sciences department at Memorial University and worked with colleagues to develop the AquAdvantage technology now being used in AquaBounty salmon farms. Photo: David Howells / Memorial University

It was an enormous change in the rate of growth, Fletcher says, noting that cross-breeding has further enhanced growth speed. Its the same with any crop, if you can replant land or get another set of fish earlier than normal, you have increased productivity.

By comparison, regular Atlantic salmon grown in optimal conditions in Atlantic Sapphires land-based facility in Florida reach maturity in 22 to 24 months.

Fletcher doesnt consider the genetically modified salmon to be much different than new fruit and vegetable products created through cross-breeding, such as the Cosmic Crisp apple that has a longer shelf life or Depurple, a purple cauliflower sweeter than the typical white variety.

He says food companies are getting rid of everything that doesnt meet their standards in terms of a commercial product. Youre actually changing nature all these kinds of things are unnatural if you want to call it that.

There is a problem with food production in the world. I know some of it is political, but if I have an idea or a technique that might be able to help with food production then Im all for it, as a scientist.

The need for protein is growing in tandem with the worlds rising population, expected to top nine billion before 2025. Salmon, which have Omega-3 fatty acids and are a good source of minerals and vitamins, are increasingly in demand. But the on-going decline of wild stocks is constricting supply. And as tighter regulations make open net pen salmon farming more challenging, investors including AquaBounty are turning to land-based salmon farming.

AquaBounty farmed salmon grown in containment tanks. The company says the fish are reared without the need for antibiotics and are free from parasites. Photo: AquaBounty

Fletchers team, which was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, partnered with a small company that morphed into AquaBounty, largely bankrolled by billionaire biotech entrepreneur Randall Kirk.

When AquaBounty set up its research and development facility on Prince Edward Island to produce the genetically modified eggs, the federal government did not permit the fish to be grown to adult size, so eggs were shipped to an AquaBounty research and development facility in Panama.

Once Health Canada approved the salmon for consumption in 2016, Ottawa allowed AquAdvantage salmon grown in the Panama facility to be sold to unwitting Canadian consumers.

The first batch of genetically modified Atlantic salmon from the Panama facility arrived at Montreals Pierre Elliot Trudeau airport in 2017, according to import documents obtained by the Quebec food watchdog group Vigilance OGM. More than 4.5 tonnes of AquAdvantage salmon subsequently flowed, unlabelled and untraceable, into Canadas food supply.

Peter Bowyer, AquaBounty farm manager, oversees containment systems where the salmon are grown. Photo: AquaBounty

There is no mandatory labelling for consumers in the grocery stores and theres very little transparency, and yet we find ourselves in the position of eating the worlds first genetically engineered animal, says Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which represents 16 groups working on issues related to genetic engineering in food and farming.

Sharratt, who has an extensive background working as a researcher and campaigner for groups involved in genetic engineering and global justice issues, says the lack of transparency extends to Ottawas decision-making process for approving the engineered salmon.

Starting in 2019, following a federal risk assessment, Ottawa allowed the salmon to be raised to maturity at the Rollo Bay facility, which also produces conventional salmon eggs, triggering concerns about a potential mix-up.

The biotechnology action network has tried to obtain information about the behind closed door approval process, Sharratt says, but information AquaBounty submitted to the government is confidential and the networks questions havent been satisfactorily answered.

The information thats used to decide the safety of genetically engineered food is submitted by the companies that want approval, she says. Very little of that information is publicly available. Very little is peer-reviewed.

The absence of information is all the more concerning, she says, because of the broad and also unknown implications of tampering with nature and the precedents it sets.

What we have here is potentially a very profound shift in the way we view food and where it comes from. Do fish come from the ocean, do they come from our rivers, do they come from an ecosystem? Or do they come from an on land factory? What decisions are we making that further threaten the future of wild salmon?

Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, is concerned about the consequences of genetically modified food. Photo: Lucy Sharratt

Nature Canada senior advisor Mark Butler says the federal government has opened a Pandoras box by approving the development and sale of genetically engineered salmon and eggs without a robust public discussion about the potential consequences.

You could say, whats wrong with pink blue jays or blue cardinals? We are now applying engineering to the genome to the very blueprint of life. It has big implications and this technology is racing along. I think it gets at the whole issue of whats wild and whats nature, and where do humans stop and where does nature start?

Do we have the right to edit the genome of a wild species from an Indigenous perspective? This raises some pretty fundamental questions and challenges.

Salmon are sacred to Indigenous peoples like the Mikmaq, and are part and parcel of food security and food sovereignty, Sark points out. They are also an integral part of cultures through ceremony, song, oral history and art. As wild stocks decline, it has a reverberating impact on the physical and spiritual health of Indigenous communities.

Sark says Indigenous peoples should have been properly consulted and Ottawa should have obtained their free, prior and informed consent before approving genetically engineered salmon.

As a Mikmaq I have a right to food, I have a right to fish lobster, I have an inherent right to access and harvest fish out of the ocean or out of the streams, the brooks, the rivers, the lakes. The Canadian government cannot extinguish that right.

He wonders what would happen if he caught an Atlantic salmon that somehow contained DNA owned by AquaBounty.

Im holding a salmon that Ive caught in my traditional waters, that my ancestors have used for thousands of years, but because its an escaped salmon or an inbred salmon from this genetically modified [organism], is it illegal for me to hold that fish and eat it without paying AquaBounty? Sark asks. Where does this end?

Kris Hunter of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, a science and advocacy organization dedicated to conserving and restoring wild Atlantic salmon, says genetically engineered salmon could be an ecological disaster for wild salmon, especially if rules change and they become the fish of choice for the farmed salmon industry.

if these animals were to get out what impact that would have on the wild fishery?

He points to the escape of hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in B.C. and Washington state. In December 2019, more than 20,000 salmon escaped from a Mowi fish farm near Port Hardy on northern Vancouver Island, while more than 160,000 Atlantic salmon escaped from a Cooke Aquaculture fish farm in Washington State in 2018, leading to a state ban on raising Atlantic salmon in open net pens.

Some escaped Atlantic salmon have been found in the salmon-bearing Fraser River, heightening worries that they will compete for food and habitat given evidence that the farmed fish can naturally reproduce.

Our concern would be if these animals were to get out and what impact that would have on the wild fishery? The wild fishery is not doing well right now.

Karen Wristen, executive director of Living Oceans Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting Canadas oceans, is uneasy about how the fast-growing genetically modified salmon might behave in the wild, possibly mating with endangered salmon populations, preying on wild juvenile salmon and outcompeting wild salmon and other ocean creatures for food. You can picture it wanting to hoover up everything in its path.

And if the salmon farming industry transitions to land-based containment systems, Wristen and Butler say there will be pressure on companies from investors to embrace genetically engineered salmon, to keep costs in line with competitors.

A wild Atlantic salmon in the waters near Quebec. Canadas wild Atlantic salmon populations have dramatically declined in recent decades. Photo: Shutterstock

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved AquaBountys genetically engineered salmon in 2010, on the condition that the salmon be sterile. Sterility is achieved through a process that creates a condition called triploidy the salmon have three chromosome sets instead of two that is between 99.5 and 99.8 per cent effective.

Its an important barrier, but not a fool proof barrier, Butler notes. For every 10,000 salmon the company produces, between 20 and 50 fish will be fertile.

Hunter, director of programs for P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, says the Atlantic Salmon Federation has met with AquaBounty and the company appears to be doing due diligence to make sure the genetically engineered salmon dont escape.

Our concern is an accident. A truck goes off the road carrying these things as its crossing a salmon river, and the next thing you know these fish are out and theyre breeding amongst other fish populations and causing untold damage.

Genetically engineered salmon eggs could also get mixed up with the regular salmon eggs harvested at the same AquaBounty facility and end up at an open net pen farm, Hunter points out. The company isnt currently permitted to sell the eggs to open net pen operations in Canada, but Hunter says that could always change.

Systems fail and accidents happen. Once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put it back in We think this is a very risky enterprise. And we dont necessarily see the benefit.

In an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal, AquaBounty president and CEO Sylvia Wulf said the company does not plan to supply AquAdvantage salmon eggs to open net pen farms and will produce the genetically modified salmon in its own land-based facilities.

AquaBountys land-based farm in Albany, Indiana, plans to send its first salmon to market later this year or early next year, depending on demand, which has been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. The company also plans to build a much larger facility in Mayfield, Kentucky, that will produce 10,000 metric tonnes of salmon a year, about eight times more than its Indiana plant.

Wulf says all of the companys market production salmon are female and sterile, which means they cannot mate with each other or with other Atlantic salmon. In addition to the biological barrier, she says the companys land-based containment systems are equipped with physical barriers, including screens, grates, netting, pumps and chemical disinfection, to prevent escape of salmon at all life stages, from eggs to full size.

AquaBountys P.E.I. fish farm. The facility is located in farmland where potatoes and soybeans grow and is about one kilometre away from the Northumberland strait. The facilitys proximity to streams and ocean water is cause for concern among critics. Photo: Leo Broderick

And AquaBounty will address egg mix-up concerns by ensuring that eggs are from conventional salmon before sending them out to farms, says Wulf, who declined a telephone interview.

Sark calls the secretive federal approval process of AquAdvantage salmon a coup detat, noting that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates genetically modified organisms, hasnt been updated for 20 years and doesnt have the bandwidth to consider genetically modified salmon.

The act, according to Butler, is a really complicated and obtuse piece of legislation, while Wristen says as challenging to decipher as the often maligned income tax act.

Our act is outdated, Sark says, and I would say extremely colonial in its essence that it cant consider genetic modification of animals that Indigenous people to a large extent still rely on, or use for ceremonial purposes, which is a matter of our sovereignty. Using the animals for sustenance is a matter of food security. The role it plays in ceremony and in culture and identity is a matter of our food sovereignty.

This is a first in the world. Youre approving it to go ahead. And your legislation is inadequate.

In the September Speech from the Throne, the Trudeau government pledged to update the environmental protection act. But Butler says senior officials in Environment Canada have indicated the changes will be minor, much to the dismay of those considering the impacts of genetically engineered salmon.

This is a first in the world, Sark says. Youre approving it to go ahead. And your legislation is inadequate and youre not considering making it adequate? Wait a second. Isnt that your job? Isnt that the role of government to make sure our health and security is looked after? Isnt that the ultimate number one goal when you sit there in Parliament to look after our interests, not the economic interests of one company?

In 2016, the Centre for Food Safety and the environmental law organization EarthJustice sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approving genetically engineered salmon, acting on behalf of a broad coalition of environmental, consumer, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and the Quinault Indian Nation.

In early November, a U.S. federal court judge ruled the Food and Drug Administration failed to analyze the risks to endangered salmon from an escape and to take into account the full extent of plans to grow the genetically modified salmon in the U.S. and around the world.

The court also ruled that the Food and Drug Administrations conclusion that genetically engineered salmon could have no possible effect on endangered wild Atlantic salmon stocks was wrong, and violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

While Judge Vincent Chhabria found the current risk to wild salmon stocks is low, he said the possibility of exposure increases with each new facility built.

Understanding the harm that could result from that exposure and having an explanation of it on record will only become more important, the judge said, ordering the FDA to go back to the drawing board to sketch out a full explanation of potential environmental consequences.

The decision, watched closely by Nature Canada, the Atlantic Salmon Federation and other groups in Canada, was celebrated by Earthjustice and its clients. Our efforts should be focused on saving the wild salmon populations that we already have not manufacturing new species that pose yet another threat to their survival, Earthjustice managing attorney Steve Mashuda said in a media statement.

Earthjustice cited studies showing there is a high risk for genetically engineered organisms to escape into the natural environment, and that genetically engineered salmon can crossbreed with native fish. Genetically engineered crops commonly cross-pollinate or establish themselves in nearby fields or the wild a process known as transgenic contamination. The contamination episodes have cost American farmers billions of dollars over the past decade, Earthjustice noted.

In wild organisms like fish, it would be even more damaging.

Wulf says the company is disappointed with some of the judges conclusions but remains confident in the robust scientific studies and review that led to the 2015 FDA approval of AquaBounty salmon.

This case did not call into question FDAs approval regarding the health and safety of our AquAdvantage salmon, she wrote in her email. The focus of this decision was on the potential environmental impacts, and the judge confirmed the low threat to the environment of our salmon.

The decision will not impact operations at the Prince Edward Island or Indiana facilities, according to Wulf, who says the company will work with the FDA on next steps and will continue to evaluate the legal decision.

The future of our domestic and global food supply will depend on innovation and technology and AquaBounty remains steadfast in our commitment to leading that charge.

Butler, who supports land-based salmon farming operations, has a piece of advice for AquaBounty: Skip the genetically engineered salmon and just raise normal fish using the best techniques and the best genetic strains and we wont have a problem with your operation, he says.

Most Canadians, if they had to assess the risks and benefits, would just say, Give me a normal salmon.

Canadian farmed salmon are being genetically engineered to grow faster to feed more people. But some worry there isn't enough transparency and accountability when it comes to the impact of genetic engineering on the natural world and Indigenous rights. Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

And since youre here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (weve made a conscious decision to keep our journalism free for all readers, regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay). Despite 2020 being the absolute worst, some really good things happened at The Narwhal, with more than two million readers and a record number of new monthly members. Will you be the next Narwhal to join our pod?

As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isnt to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs its to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, weve hired eight journalists in less than a year.

Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but were telling stories differently by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 2,200 members.

The truth is we wouldnt be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.

We know that these days the worlds problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. Its easy to feel like what we do doesnt make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.

We have big things in store for 2021, but we need your support to make them happen.

If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.

View post:
Frankenfish or food of the future? The risks and rewards of Canadas genetically engineered salmon - The Narwhal